Kaep's protest is automatically a fail because he has a guaranteed portion on his contract?

If this is what you actually believe my post says, then just stop reading my posts.

If you understand that it's not what my post says and are just using a lazy logical fallacy to be right-thinking, at least spice it up with pictures, like NorCal did. Otherwise it's just a rather unimaginative cherry-picked strawman.

"I come from a majority black community from Oakland, California ... so the struggle, I seen it," Peters said after the Chiefs beat San Diego 33-27 in overtime. "I still have some family in the struggle. All I'm saying is we want to educate those, the youth that's coming up."

I wonder if by "in the struggle" he's referring to kids that have made decent grades in high school, stayed out of trouble and are considering their options after graduation but are being stonewalled by white people despite their performance. Somehow I doubt that's the case.

You heard it here first: your opinions and real life experiences only matter if you have good grades and consider all options after graduation.

I suspect the "struggle" he's referring to is largely a result of people making poor decisions. If so, I know lots of white people from my tiny hometown in the Midwest that are also in the struggle. If we could actually extract the people he's referring to in his old neighborhood and take a look at what's going on in their lives, I'd place a large bet on my assumptions. I wonder if the people on the other side of argument would be willing to do the same.

All BS aside, do you honestly believe the people he's referring to are upstanding citizens who managed to finish high school, stay out of trouble and have made a solid attempt at being employed and productive?

I suspect the "struggle" he's referring to is largely a result of people making poor decisions. If so, I know lots of white people from my tiny hometown in the Midwest that are also in the struggle. If we could actually extract the people he's referring to in his old neighborhood and take a look at what's going on in their lives, I'd place a large bet on my assumptions. I wonder if the people on the other side of argument would be willing to do the same.

All BS aside, do you honestly believe the people he's referring to are upstanding citizens who managed to finish high school, stay out of trouble and have made a solid attempt at being employed and productive?

Do you want to know what "the struggle" is? Here's one example from our own forum the other day:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Medwed

I don't rent to Eastern Europeans, Young Brits, prostitutes that come for Formula I or any blacks: that includes Arabs, Africans or Indians. I don't hate those people I discriminate against them because they are shitty tenants. If blacks were the best paying customers I would exclusively rent to them.
So charges of racism are as stupid as people making them.

I know Medwed thinks that he is not renting to a group of people, because they are shitty tenants, not because they are black. However, what he's doing is believing that all people who are black possess the same inferior characteristic (i.e. being shitty tenants). That's, literally, the definition of racism. By doing so, he excludes all black people from having the same opportunity that all people who are not black have to rent apartments. That makes life more of a struggle for all the black people who, in fact, aren't shitty tenants.

Now, add in some other things: the lack of a dad to teach you stuff, the lack of good role models in your community, shittier schools than other kids, no parents of your friends to hook you up with a summer job, not having access to a good lawyer to get you off the hook when you do the same stupid thing kids across town do, etc. Some people just have to work a little harder to overcome more adversities in life. Sometimes these things have nothing to do with their own poor decisions. It's just their lot in life, and it sometimes is a result of people like Medwed who just make it harder for them because he thinks all black people are shitty tenants.

what he's doing is believing that all people who are black possess the same inferior characteristic (i.e. being shitty tenants). That's, literally, the definition of racism. By doing so, he excludes all black people from having the same opportunity that all people who are not black have to rent apartments. That makes life more of a struggle for all the black people who, in fact, aren't shitty tenants.

Or maybe he just thinks being black is a strong predictor of whether someone's going to be a shitty tenant and doesn't rent to them because he has no practical way to determine whether any individual person would be a good tenant.

Or maybe he just thinks being black is a strong predictor of whether someone's going to be a shitty tenant and doesn't rent to them because he has no practical way to determine whether any individual person would be a good tenant.

Not endorsing it, just saying.

This is just a semantic difference with no actual distinction. The effect is the same. He treats all people of one race differently (in this case, worse). Therefore, the effect is that all black people are worse off, including the ones who aren't actually shitty tenants.

What makes these people shitty tenants? Are there factors that could be unrelated to their race that may result in not a blanket exclusion of all black people? Bad credit? Too many family members? Unstable employment?

This is just a semantic difference with no actual distinction. The effect is the same. He treats all people of one race differently (in this case, worse). Therefore, the effect is that all black people are worse off, including the ones who aren't actually shitty tenants.

A minute ago you were citing dictionaries and now you're complaining about semantic distinctions?

The effect might be the same, but the motivation matters. At least, it ought to when you're talking about "the definition of racism." Or do you not think there's a meaningful difference between "I discriminate because all black people are inherently bad" on one end and, say, "I regretfully discriminate because, although their problems are environmental and result of a legacy of racism, race is a de facto predictor of risk and I can't bear it"?

Quote:

What makes these people shitty tenants? Are there factors that could be unrelated to their race that may result in not a blanket exclusion of all black people? Bad credit? Too many family members? Unstable employment?

A minute ago you were citing dictionaries and now you're complaining about semantic distinctions?

The effect might be the same, but the motivation matters. At least, it ought to when you're talking about "the definition of racism." Or do you not think there's a meaningful difference between "I discriminate because all black people are inherently bad" on one end and, say, "I regretfully discriminate because, although their problems are environmental and result of a legacy of racism, race is a de facto predictor of risk and I can't bear it"?
That's another issue entirely.

There are two discussions here.

1) Racism
2) "The struggle"

With the former, sure, there is a meaningful difference between the two types of discrimination you noted. The distinction may be particularly meaningful from a legal perspective. Fair enough.

With the latter, no, there is not a meaningful difference between the two types of discrimination you noted. If you're a black guy, who gives a shit whether Medwed truly hates black people and won't rent to them or just uses skin color as a de facto predictor of risk and won't rent to them? In each instance, you wind-up with the same shitty result, because you are black. Now, you've gotta do more work to get an apartment than someone else. Kinda sucks.